MovieChat Forums > Evil Angels (1988) Discussion > Sam Neil ruins this film

Sam Neil ruins this film

posted 12 years ago by mk_k6-326-626621
7 replies | jump to latest

His amateruish wooden performance almost ruins the entire film. He was completely out of his depth opposite Meryl - flat, monotonous and the cringe-worthy preaching scenes was shockingly bad. What you needed was an actor who could portray strength, vulnerability and extraordinary belief - this actor failed on every single level. His limitations may have gone unnoticed opposite a similarly mediocre actress, but when you're opposite one of the greatest actresses of all time at the peak of her powers, he simply looked like an amateur. Its like Pavorotti being asked to sing with an American idol hopeful. Why on earth this guy was cast in anaethema to me - was he seriously the only Australian actor about? Dreadful.

[–] SCraigNZ 12 years ago

Sam Neill is not Australian - he's a New Zealander.

And perhaps (being that he is, in my opinion, an excellent actor) he was wooden and preachy in order to accurately portray the characteristics of the man he acting as - Micheal Chamberlain.

"I'd rather have 3 minutes of wonderful than a whole life time of nothing special".....

[–] mk_k6-326-626621 12 years ago

No human being is 'wooden' thats a foolish justification for bad acting.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

... in order to accurately portray the characteristics of the man he acting as - Michea(ae)l Chamberlain.

Yes, he does succeed quite admirably in portraying Michael Chamberlain, as he was both depicted in the Australian media and the book upon which the film is based, Evil Angels.🐭

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Nope, not the case; as a matter of fact, this is the first performance I`ve seen from Neill where he`s actually pretty impressive (as opposed to, say, his appearence in Zulawski`s Possession which ranks amongst the worst male leading performances in a supposedly respectable movie that I`ve ever seen). Manages to hold his own opposite Streep in top form.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rascal67 11 years ago

Neil is not one of my favourites and find him quite flat and dreary. However, I thought he was perfectly cast and find his character and performance just as interesting to watch as Streeps'. I actually find him more believable than Streep here.

[–] westal_sage 10 years ago

Wow you really didn't like him in this film, did you? lol

I thought he was adequate if not more than that.

[–] ElxDiablo 10 years ago

I thought Sam Neill did a really good job.

He had a role to play than entailed him being rather "vanilla", and once the pressure was on, to crumble and fumble, both in the court room and in his personal life. This is in contrast to Meryl's portrayal of Lindy as someone who may be grieving, but also has far more strength in the face of adversity...and the stomach for graphic details of her daughter's death.

This is both faithful to the book the film was based on, and to the media coverage.

Furthermore, even though the movie ended with them together, the schism between Lindy and Michael which ultimately lead to the breakup of their marriage, hinged on these character contrasts...and Neill did exactly what was needed to do, to illustrate this.

I think it was his job not to be an "equal" to Meryl (Lindy was ultimately the focus of all the media attention, and the "trial by media" that ensued)...so rather than his acting being "mediocre", I saw it as being suitably restrained.

...but heck, that's just my two cents.